Water cooler

Welcome to the water cooler This is a place to find out what is happening and to discuss our external projects and activities. Feel free to suggest ideas that could help our charitable mission or ask questions about how you can help. To discuss the inner workings of the charity, head over to the engine room.

WMUK Grants programme - a piece of cake?

Applying for a grant is easy.

If Wikimedia UK can help you improve Wikimedia projects, check out our grants page.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tools for identifying Wikimedians at press events, etc

Albin with Wikipedia microphone

Copied from a post I made to the UK mailing list at Michael Maggs's request:

Reading about the making of videos at Eurovison I was stuck by the positive response to the "Wikipedia representative", not least engendered by his use of a branded microphone windshield (see third picture in the above post; that windshield is far too big for use on the Zoom H1 which I use for the voice project, but something smaller would be useful).

Similarly, my local branch of OpenStreetMap issues mappers with branded high-viz vests; these often reassure the public (or at least facilitate the opening of a discussion), when someone is walking down their road noting house numbers and other features.

I suggest some thought is given to providing WMUK volunteers who are likely to attend press calls and related events with something to identify them in a crowd; this could include microphone windshields, tabards, baseball caps, or perhaps something else.

I strongly suggest that the primary brand used should be Wikipedia, with Wikimedia and WMUK (or WikiNews or whatever) beings secondary, as it is the former which the lay public recognise most readily; and which elicits the positive response referred to above.

On a related note, are we ever going to get the promised business cards?

Michael asked:

perhaps you could kick off a discussion there by summarising the sort of recognition and/or materials that you would find it helpful for the charity to supply?

I've mentioned some items above; I welcome suggestions from others. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 15 May 2014 (BST)

I sent an email yesterday to the UK list and it has not been posted. If any one wishes to read my summary of the background, please email me for a copy. There seems little point in re-sending emails to the list as I have been given no explanation. Be aware that any emails I send may misleadingly appear in the list archives as if it was posted at the time I sent it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (BST)

Or maybe the list admins haven't got round to dealing with it yet. Probably best not to speculate on motives. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2014 (BST)

(edit conflict) I have removed anything from my comment here that was more than bald facts, to make sure it is now extremely hard to read bad faith into it. The email of concern was posted on 15 May 2014 @14:16. If it does get posted, it will appear as if it were posted before six other emails in that thread that in practice were written afterwards. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (BST)

Thank you. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (BST)

Business cards

I would hope that we can make the best possible use of this excellent suggestion to increase the range and scope of our charitable work.

If we were to supply business cards or other items implying accreditation, what should be on them? Something like "Volunteer Photographer, Wikimedia UK" or the equivalent, with the globe logo if we can persuade the WMF to allow us to use their trademark in that way? The wording "Wikipedia representative" may not be possible as we are not legally allowed to speak for the "Wikipedia community" as a whole, in the same way that we cannot control what goes into the encyclopedia. Just thinking aloud here; of course we will have to look into the legal issues of representation before we can be absolutely certain about what is safe. Ideally, it would be best if we can avoid having to print disclaimers, as any sort of legalise will tend to undermine the member and will scare people off.

What would members find useful, in practice?--MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2014 (BST)

Why the word "volunteer"? from comments on the mailing list there seems to be an assumption that it offers some form of legal indemnity to WMUK, or WMF; I remain to be convinced that that's the case. I've used my (voluntary) work with the RSPB as a yardstick before; when I appear in public alongside their paid staff, I have the same type of badge, and the same branded clothing, as they do. The voluntary nature of my participation is nowhere made apparent. [I've split this as a subsection of the above, lest that get bogged down]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:04, 16 May 2014 (BST)

That was just my suggestion. I suspect that the term, or something equivalent, might be needed on a formal business card, but as you say would seem unnecessary on clothing, badges and so on.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2014 (BST)

as far as I'm aware Andy is right and defining someone as a volunteer does not limit the charity's liability. My view is that if we want to be a volunteer led organisation we should provide volunteers with cards. The charity would need to consider and take steps to limit any liability which might arise as a result. This would however possibly open up a distinction between 'officially-approved' volunteers and others doing the same kind of work on their own initiative. How would everyone feel about that? Any suggestions for the basis on which cards should/should not be issued? Mccapra (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2014 (BST)

As I understand the logic of the previous debate, it was essentially that if we gave volunteers business cards, they would be representing WMUK. The board, in their infinite wisdom, thought that was an inherently bad thing, but there was also the small risk that somebody "representing" WMUK might say something silly, that somebody might take them seriously, and that WMUK's reputation might suffer as a consequence. That's a lot of ifs buts and maybes if you ask me. Volunteers representing WMUK should be seen as a Good Thing™, and the advantages of business cards to people like Andy and me (who talk to a lot of people and often need to follow up, or give others a way of following up should they wish) far outweigh the hypothetical drawbacks based on an overly conservative approach to risk. On a list of most useful things the chapter could d for its volunteers, business cards would be pretty high up on my list. If it's really necessary, we can sign some sort of agreement. Harry Mitchell (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Bear in mind that the composition of the board was almost totally different during that 'previous debate'. I can't speak for past boards, but I can say that the current board is more than open to discussing ideas such as this which could help volunteers be more effective in the work they want to do in association with the charity.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (BST)

I can speak with personal recall of board discussions (for goodness sake, it was hardly that long ago and plenty of discussion was publicly on this wiki), the issue was volunteers making up fantasy titles rather than being an "inherently bad thing", however the trustees wanted to care not to hurt anyone's feelings. Being open to discussing ideas with volunteers is not an invention of the "new" board of trustees, giving out that perception is unhelpful and truly smacks of damnatio memoriae, in most measurable ways past boards were far more engaged in discussion with volunteers than the current set. --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Your last sentence is accurate, Fae, certainly. It wasn't the volunteers who made up the vanity titles, though (indeed, I Tip-Ex'd it out on my cards), but the phrase used for getting us replacements was "within a week"... Harry Mitchell (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2014 (BST)

This is now on the agenda for the next Board meetingMccapra (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Thanks Harry. I have no idea why anyone promised to get replacements within a week. I doubt it was me, based on my personal experience of it taking almost a year to be supplied with replacement business cards, and by the time I actually had them in my possession I was on my way out the door, so they became an extremely expensive notepad. I never found out how much they cost, but I think it would have been in the region of £140? Enough to provide lunch and travel for a modest edit-a-thon. It's been said before, but I hope the board actually ask about costs this time around, as it seems fair to make these costs a matter of public record. --Fæ (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (BST)

I'm not sure I'd go along with the logic that the business cards would be a replacement for an editahon (nor, even, that the editathon would be the better investment, even if it has more tangible results), but I do take your point on costs. It seems reasonable for people to know how much they cost and weigh that up against the benefits for themselves, I agree. "Within a week" was the phrase used (just one of those things that sticks in the mind, I guess) but I guess recrimination for the events of yesteryear isn't really helpful, and I take Alistair's comment to mean that the board will consider the issue carefully, which is progress at least. Harry Mitchell (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2014 (BST)

This is an old conversation and I'm not sure of the outcome, but just wanted to give some factual background.

The Wikimedia Foundation specify a standard for business cards which involves rounded corners and two-sided cards. The cards that were printed a couple of years ago met this standard, but this was why the cost was so controversially high, which in turn was why the idea has not revisited again until this year. Our previous batch of business cards used a more standard format: rectangular and printed on one side. This is naturally cheaper and also meant we could approach a wider range of printing shops. When I was a trustee, I spent a day getting PDF-editing software, editing the template, ringing around Bristol printers for quotes and bussing out to the shop that could do it cheapest. The cost will be written down somewhere, but it was relatively cheap- I seem to recall 90 quid for 1500 cards, but don't rely on my memory. (There are special offers for business cards that seem much cheaper than this, but you can't use your own design). I still use this business cards at events today, with the "Trustee" part scratched out of course.

I like Andy's suggestion of microphone shields/ other props that are visibly Wikipedia-branded, but it could be costly for small numbers. Maybe the on-a-charity-budget solution is just to use stickers? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (BST)

Clothing

Anything visible, like t-shirts/hoodies (perhaps with writing on the back, rather than the front?), baseball caps, camera cases/straps, and other props that people would use anyway lends itself to being branded, which makes it visible. I do agree that the Wikipedia logo is the one that people recognise; if I have to spend ten minutes explaining the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia, we've defeated the point (which is to be recognisable, and to catch people's eye with something they immediately recognise and have positive thoughts about). Harry Mitchell (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2014 (BST)

Camera straps would be good idea, if the brand is very prominent. Clothing would need a logo (perhaps breast-pocket sized) on the front, if the purpose is to identify the wearer to someone facing them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:49, 28 May 2014 (BST)

Shaping our programme 2014-19

Dear community,

We are now preparing for plans for next year. This is a complicated task with many viewpoints and factors to consider. Your view are an important part of this and I am publishing today a discussion paper with suggestions for how the chapter can develop over the next year and beyond.

It is based on previous year's work and interviews with trustees, community members and staff.

You can access it here

Please comment on the discussion page.

Thanks and hope to see many of you at Wikimania. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (BST)

New overlaying website is live

Hello everyone, I'm very happy to report that our new overlay website is live. Just to reiterate that this is intended for people new to our work and encountering us for the first time. Experienced Wikimedians and our community are not the primary audience for this. But I'd like to know what you think, so please do take a look. It's here. I expect there are refinements needed and I have spotted a couple myself but on the whole I am happy with it. I hope you like it. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2014 (BST)

Voting at the AGM

Yesterday a number of concerns were raised about expired membership and voting at the AGM. Evidently this year a number of people’s memberships have expired without their realising. We adopted a new procedure this year on AGM voting in response to concerns about security, and sent out voting forms in the post. It was obviously not clear to everyone that they needed the form posted to them in order to vote. After Wikimania I’ll start a discussion on the wiki about whether we should continue to post voting forms in future years – unless anyone else wants to start it sooner. As far as voting at this year’s AGM is concerned the Board has asked me to say the following:

1. If you are a member and for any reason have not received/forgotten to bring your voting paper, you can ask for a new voting paper shortly before the AGM. Papers will be available for any member who needs them. There will be a check to confirm that your membership is current.

2. As in previous years, it will be possible for applications for membership to be considered in advance of the AGM, and for the Board to have oversight when it holds a meeting just before the AGM. If you have come to Wikimania believing that you are a member and just discovered that you aren’t any more, and you want to rejoin and vote: you can apply to rejoin up to noon tomorrow using the online form at https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=4

If you are readmitted you will be given voting papers and may vote.

Apologies for any difficulty caused this year. I hope this answers the concerns raised.

Thanks

Alastair McCapra WMUK Secretary

2014 AGM

In all the hubbub of Wikimania it could be easy to forget that we held our 2014 AGM! Unless I am mistaken we had 72 people through the door making it our best attended ever. The minutes are being written up and will be published as soon as possible. Holding it in the middle of Wikimania meant that an unusually large number of people could attend. For instance volunteers who had received WMUK or Foundation scholarships. We also attracted a number of observers from other countries.

It is important to put on record my thanks to:

• The volunteer tellers, Richard Symonds and James Farrar.
• Michael Maggs for calmly chairing despite time restrictions and a packed agenda.
• Greyham Dawes for a concise and authoritative Treasurer's report.
• The Wikimania Team for accommodating us.
• Everyone who turned up, and those that were unable to who cast their votes by post or proxy.
• Those who contributed to the discussions and debates.

Next year's will be on September 13th, venue to be decided. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2014 (BST)

Could someone add a link here to the parallel Facebook discussion that informed so many members and interested Wikimedians about events throughout the AGM? Unfortunately I was unaware that this was a feature of the AGM either beforehand, or at the time. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2014 (BST)

Applications for a Volunteer Support Organiser (Cover)

Hello everyone, Wikimedia UK is now accepting applications for a Volunteer Support Organiser (Cover). The role will involve managing the engagement and development of volunteers in the programme of activities and work of Wikimedia UK. This is a fixed term position for four months. If you are interested in applying, more details can be found here. The deadline for applications is 5pm BST on Tuesday 26th August 2014. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2014 (BST)

Am I able to fix problems with the new front end?

I have just spotted a small error on the new front end at https://wikimedia.org.uk/

Am I able to fix it myself? e.g. is there a wiki that it takes info from? Or do I have to request a change?

The error I spotted was that the link for Liverpool meetup is incorrect.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2014 (BST)

Actually, another link also simply returns you to the main page. I suspect that the links are waiting to be updated, but in general it's probably best to raise a bugzilla ticket at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org.uk/ if we're all agreed that the issue has a workable fix. My recommendation for anybody who has the time is to compile a list of requested link changes, e.g.

• "Open Scholarship Hack, Wikimania Fringe" -> https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fringe/Open_Scholarship_Weekend (although that was actually 19 July, so probably needs removing)
• "Liverpool meet up" -> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/Liverpool/13

The new front page is made using WordPress, so anyone with admin rights on the installation (not me) can edit the content. perhaps we can be told whom to contact for that information. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2014 (BST)

Thank you for the comments. The new site is indeed built in WordPress. I am currently the only admin but I am going to create other accounts shortly (today / tomorrow). In the meantime, if you see anything else that you think needs updating please drop me a line and I will take care of it. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2014 (BST)

Just realised I hadn't followed this up with you, sorry about that. I've fixed the link now. Have a good weekend. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2014 (BST)

I'd like an edit account please. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2014 (BST)

Free books about oil paintings in the UK

Hi, Wikimedia UK has been talking to the Public Catalogue Foundation. They have offered us a dozen of their books on Oil Paintings in public ownership in the UK to give to FA writers who would find these useful reference material. If you would like one of these books, details of the 85 titles available are here. You do not need to be a member of Wikimedia UK or even resident in the UK to get one of these books, if you are an active editor who would find one of these useful just choose a book and email me. Preference will be given to FA writers. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2014 (BST)

Upcoming Training for Trainers session in Edinburgh

Attendees of the February 2014 Training the Trainers event

Wikimedia UK is committed to supporting our volunteers. To encourage them to teach others how to edit Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, we are running a weekend training workshop. This will take place on the weekend of 1-2 November in Edinburgh, and we would particularly encourage anyone from Scotland and the north of England to attend.

The workshop will be delivered by a professional training company and aims to improve delegates’ abilities to deliver any training workshop. It’s especially relevant to anybody who already runs Wikimedia-related training, or is very interested in doing so in near future.

The workshop is a chance to:

• Get accredited and receive detailed feedback about your presenting and training skills
• Get general trainer skills which you can then apply when e.g. delivering specific Wikipedia workshops
• Share your skills with others
• Help design a training programme that serves Wikimedia UK in the long term.

The course will run from 9:30 am-6:30pm on Saturday and 9am-5pm on Sunday. A light breakfast and lunch will be provided. We should also be able to cover travel and accommodation if you let us know in advance.

If you are interested in attending, please indicate your commitment by registering on this page but please note that places are limited.

If you are not able to attend this time but would like to take part in the future, please let us know by email to volunteeringwikimedia.org.uk – we will be offering more sessions in the future.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. We can also put you in touch with past participants who will be able to share their experiences with you. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2014 (BST)

Proposal: Science/STEM Conference

This is an idea I have had on the back burner for a long time. Note the following:

• We have existing relationships with many scientific bodies such as the Institute of Physics, Geological Society, Medical Research Council, and many more. However, individual societies are usually unwilling to take the risk of running a big event centred on Wikimedia because, although they have some interest from their members, they can't be sure that enough [physicists, geologists, psychologists, whatever] will turn up.
• Many scientists are pure researchers working in small research centres: they aren't associated with universities, or at least university teaching. These small research centres or groups can easily be missed in our outreach but they can be very receptive: e.g. Sphingonet
• Scientists are under professional pressure 1) to engage with the public, 2) to make all the outputs of their research open-access and freely reusable. This is the case much more so now than just a few years ago. This makes them receptive to explanations of how they can achieve this. This has also led to a great expansion of science communicators/ public engagement professionals.
• Scientists are likely to do coding/markup in their daily work. This makes them "low-hanging fruit". It's not that they are more valuable to Wikipedia than arts/humanities experts: in fact I think WP is clearly more in need of content and expertise in arts/humanities areas. I mean that in the current atmosphere, outreach to scientists is more likely to result in enthusiasm and concrete outcomes.
• We have documentation and workshops aimed at scientists and their bosses, explaining how Wikimedia relates to their goals of research impact and public engagement. These materials need continual improvement and wide publicity.
• There are articulate scientist-Wikipedians such as Peter Murray Rust, Daniel Mietchen, Darren Logan, and Alex Bateman who are great at demonstrating Wikimedia's relevance to scientific practice.
• Wikimania 2014 and other events have shown that Wikimedia has useful friends in the scientific sphere, including the Public Library of Science and the many Open Access/Open Science advocates.
• We have raised a lot of awareness of Wikipedia as a platform for dissemination or for education, but not so much yet about WP as a platform for research itself.
• Wikimedia UK volunteers have run sessions at science conferences but there is just too much overlap between Wikimedia and science to cover in a single session.

I think all these facts suggest that a large conference (aiming at 100 attendees) on Science and Wikipedia would have a lot of impact. The themes of the conference would be:

• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as platforms for promoting informed public discussion of scientific topics and theories (acknowledging that the public have a curiosity about all sorts of scientific topics, and overwhelmingly use Wikipedia as a starting point to self-educate).
• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for research (e.g. the Research portal).
• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a model for scientific publishing and citizen science (including Wiki-to-Journal publication, Journal-to-Wiki publication, altmetrics, machine-extraction of data from published research, open bibliographic data, data citation, crowdsourced enhancement of scholarly databases, integration of Wikipedia with open/free services such as Figshare, ORCID, Flickr...)
• Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a platform for scientific education. (The answer to "I haven't time to edit Wikipedia." is "Allocate your students to do it and assess them.")
• Women in Science and Technology: is Wikipedia reinforcing stereotypes or providing role models? What is being done?
• Since a lot of the attendees will be personally interested in editing Wikipedia, the event should include training.

I see this as potentially a day or day-and-a-half event, on the model of EduWiki. Much as I advocate for geographic diversity, the scholarly societies and science communicators are so concentrated in London that this event would realistically have to be in London. This means that for it to be financially feasible we'd need a host organisation to provide a cheap venue. It would need about a year's lead time to organise and publicise.

I realise that WMUK's funding makes it hard to plan costly activities in advance, that staff have a lot on their plate and that at this point the suggestion of organising another conference may come like fatty food after a powerful hangover. On the other hand, I think an event like this could be a great success, would continue the partnerships we've already worked to build up, could spawn more editors and more partnerships, and could involve shared effort with other Open Coalition organisations, such as Open Knowledge. Feedback welcome on this suggestion. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (BST)

Sounds like a good idea in principle. Wearing my "Wikipedian-in-Residence at ORCID" hat, I'm in. We should consider whether there are other events to which this could be attached (to save/ share costs), and whether we need a traditional or "unconference" format (or a blend). Does the medical project do anything like this? What about the open access/ open publishing folk? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:36, 29 August 2014 (BST)

Would be great to have you involved, Andy. Yay for a blend of keynotes/ scheduled sessions/ unconference blocks! That way we have appealing stuff to publicise, but lots of attendees get a chance to speak and people can talk about very new activities. I think medicine on Wikipedia could be a conference itself, but throwing the net wider means a wider potential audience, and STEM is a wide net. A conference like this is probably a necessary step on the way to more specialised conferences, and that's a big reason I'd like us to do it.

There are relevant conferences where we've previously been represented, like Science Online London and the national public engagement conference, and we've run workshops adjacent to major subject conferences (you may well have done this yourself), but I think the interesting work going on under the above themes has outgrown one subject or one session in a conference. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2014 (BST)

Love the idea of the conference. I have organised and facilitated an unconference as part of a wider conference before, so could do similar for this. Yaris678 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2014 (BST)

I think this is a great idea, thank you for sharing. Wikimedia UK's proposal to the FDC needs to be complete and handed in on 1st October. If we wanted to include something like this in our proposal we would need to get a handle on how much it would cost and where it would fit into our strategic goals - which of course it does. If anyone is keen to start a wiki page for the proposed event where we can thrash out some details, I would be happy to help. We'd need to be fairly quick about it. If there is anything the office can do to help please do let me know. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2014 (BST)

I think this is a great idea and would happily help out17:30, 2 September 2014 (BST)143.65.196.4 <-- this is HenryScow, unfortunately I'm having login probs on WMUK!

Sounds a great idea. There's only so much you can do in a day (or 1.5) though, especially if training is included. Some narrower focus might be a good idea, leaving space for the next year .... Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2014 (BST)

@Johnbod: I agree that pursuing each of these themes at length would make the conference too big. The idea is that we invite contributions on these themes and the conference participants decide which to prioritise. Also, the unconference format would mean that there could be sessions that cover a lot of ideas in a short time, eg. lightning talks or round-table discussions. I share the hope that follow-up events would have a different emphasis.

@Stevie Benton (WMUK): I want to take up your offer. I'm kind of worn out writing stuff, but I'm clear in my head how this relates to the strategic goals. If we talk over Skype and you ask me some questions, can you write down the details you need?

@all: So we need to decide quickly if this is actually happening, and it's not happening unless we have a venue we can use freely or very cheaply. That means that we must get a suitable host organisation. The Wellcome Trust/Wellcome Library would be an ideal location, as would the Royal Society, as would the British Library, as would the Science Museum (where we've previously had an AGM). My recollection of the Institute of Physics building is that its rooms are not quite big enough for the conference I envisage, but there are other scholarly societies that have suitable venues and would like to do a jointly badged event with Wikimedia UK. I'm assuming that once we have a venue, WMUK could pay for refreshments, handle bookings and we volunteers can organise programme and publicity. So let's all pump our respective contacts and try to get at least an in-principle agreement. This could be a headline-making event, especially with the right controversial speakers. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2014 (BST)

An additional thought: the one-and-a-half-day format assumes people are staying overnight. This will be more difficult in London than in other places. Perhaps it would be better to run the conference for two days, with a late start both days so that people can commute in (e.g. from Cambridge or Oxford) on off-peak trains. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2014 (BST)

Automated membership welcomes and renewal process - feedback sought

Dear all,

We are now working with a contractor to improve the way our database supports membership applications, approvals and renewals and reminders!

I have created a flowchart to describe what we are currently planning as a process - you can see it here. The shapes that are not green represent different email templates that are customised by linking to member details held on each person's database record.

I would love feedback about:

• What stages are missed
• What else might we include in these emails in terms of content
• What problems can you see with this

I will review comments on Friday 12th September so please get back to me by then - the talk page for the flow chart would be best or you can email me directly. Unfortunately I am on holiday Saturday 6th - Thursday 11th so won't reply on those days but other members of staff will keep an eye out for any requests for info and if I can check in from a French campsite I will :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2014 (BST)

Tweaks to the front page Wordpress template

I just did some testing of the WMUK home page. Well done for embedding the Youtube video in a way that doesn't track the users!

A few quite minor things that could be changed in the template:

The "Welcome" top-level heading on the front page is a common error: it suggests to search engines that the word "welcome" is relevant to the content of the site. The heading does nothing at best, or dilutes the relevance of content search terms to the content of the site. Better to have "Wikimedia UK" as the h1 on that page: we want people searching for "Wikimedia UK" to find that page, don't we?

The source code contains <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="wikimedia.org.uk » Welcome Comments Feed" href="https://wikimedia.org.uk/wellcome/feed/" /> but this is a broken link, as is /welcome/feed/ and /feed/ . I don't think there's any need for this tag at all.

This og:description meta tag includes a sentence fragment: "We can teach you how to ...". The description would be fine without this.

These are minor quibbles but fixing them would help the appearance of the site in search engines. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (BST)